What evidence do we have for the existence of a "pre-Christian" LXX?

Well there are the 3 major Codexes.
Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Vaticanus for a start.
Stephanos I

What evidence do we have for the existence of a "pre-Christian" LXX?

Not much. Its pretty much the same evidence we have for the existence of a person named Jesus the Christ.

Among other information, we have the witness of the Letter of Aristeas that Ptolemy (Philadelphius II) 285-247 BC had his library at Alexandria augmented with a copy of the HS which he commissioned to be translated into Greek.

Philo of Alexandria in the 1st Century AD mentions the Septuagint. Wherever Christianity spread translations of the Scriptures were made based on the LXX.

Among the others to cite the LXX are Aquila 128 AD,Symmachus late 2nd Century Ad, Heschius in the 3-4th Century AD.

Stephanos I

We also know from a lingustic criticism of the NT that Jesus and the Apostle qoute from this version of the Sacred Scriptures, it had the consistent usage of the Early Church until the time of Jerome when the Vulgate became standard in the West.
Stephanos I

I am aware that this is a position held by many scholars as undisputable... however... would it be like me not to dispute it??

Below… I have used your post to go off on my own tangent so … no one should think I am correcting you at all. I am just going off on a tangent discussion.

At one time I believed that the original NT was Hebrew and I argued against the position that the Jews of NT time spoke Aramaic. Now - however - I am convinced they spoke Aramaic... (a position that you held if I remember correctly). I am convinced mostly by Pershitta (Aramaic manuscripts). This has no impact on my belief that they also spoke Hebrew and read Hebrew as a requirement but most (excepting people like Paul (scholars) and the high priesthood where it was required to ceremony) were not proficient with it.

This brings to my mind the strong possibility that when the NT items were transliterated from the Aramaic to the Greek - that the scribes, quite naturally leaned heavily upon their already existing knowledge of the Septuagint and drew on the Septuagint phrasing when transliterating old testament quotes.

This natural human inclination - now rises the possibility - and even probability - that if quotes from the Old Testament appear in the NT with a Septuagint flavor - that the cause rests with the transliterations from the Aramaic to the Greek.

This is not to sa y that Jesus did no know the Greek Septuagint or that he did not quote from it. He may have. But echoes of the Septuagint in the Greek transliterations of the NT are not sufficient alone to nail the matter down.

As most of them he was speaking to were not Greek speaking but Aramaic listeners - it seems reasonable that Jesus would not speak Greek to them… that he would not be using the Greek but speaking it in Aramaic to them - but rather that he would be quoting (reminding) them from Aramaic copies of which they were by default familiar with in all ways.

The Jews have not ever held any particular copy or translation of scriptures to be ‘THE divine word’ as some today today that one or the other translation of scriptures is THE one golden copy by which all others must bend. Rather - it is evident by the existence of all the variations - and by commentaries of the Mishrah etc… where some portion of scriptures is examined by mentioning a plethora of variations - and the commentaries found with the Dead Sea scrolls - that the Jews places the written words as secondary to the intended meaning by which the words arose.

Paul writes more than once that Christians should not bring discussions of the written scriptures to the point of arguments and division… and Paul should know because as Saul (a Pharisee) that is just what his political party was expert at.

There is no primacy - of any particular written scripture - either in the Jewish mind of in the mind of the early Church. Any ‘primacy’ at all was utilitarian in force for official use and ceremony - for the sake of tenderization and uniformity while performing public ceremony. Such is done by the Orthodox (Septuagint) and the Catholic (Revised Standard). I knew only a little about other churches but I do know that the Catholic church researches and examines many translations and transliterations while at the same time holding that mystical life and authority of the church is the source of all scriptures and not the product of any scripture.

I raise this because I just recently objected to (for the sake of discussion) the claim by someone else that the Pershiita holds a primacy above any Greek translations. I told him ‘that is not how it works’.

Peace be with you Stephanos. I mention this stuff by way of discussion... I am not an authority.

-ray

Ray,
I do not know enough about the OT versions to comment on your statement.
But it is not true in regards to the Early Church, the Fathers down to the late 4th Century , almost all regarded the LXX as the standard form of the OT. Not until Jerome's Vulgate was there any rival to the LXX. In fact up til then the Christian Church held that the LXX was verbally inspiried and there are even some modern Scripture Scholars who would still hold that position.

Stephanos I

Your right in a sense that the Greek and Latin churches (the biggest blocks) both held the Septuagint as standard up to the point of the Vulgate - but that does not seem to be the case across the board in all of the churches of the entire Church.

Some other churches used other copies in whatever language they had - and did not join themselves to those who held the Greek versions as the standard or the Vulgate when it came along.

While we Catholics can tend to think that the church is - us Catholics, and the Orthodox may at time tend to think of the church as - the Orthodox... it is a myopic sight... I think... because the church is so much wider.

I often tend to think of the 'church fathers' as that bunch of Greek fathers - which included a few Latin guys.
But I do not think the Copts, Chaldean, Ethiopian, or Orientals and so on - would be thinking of the Greek or Latin fathers - when they think of the ‘fathers of the church’. These smaller churches have never held either the Septuagint nor Vulgate or Revised Standard version - as church wide standard.

The Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic, and Latin - tend to have the view that they constitute - the entire church… of should. These tend to argue between themselves which one of them is the touch stone of the entire church the pattern by which all churches should conform.

I see your point that So while a great majority held the Greek copies as standard and almost sacristant - to a supernatural item - the entire church in total - was not joined to that belief.

The Greek early fathers were the first ones to imagine that - they - were the standard by which the entire church should conform. And of course the Latin church also believed that - they - were the standard by which the entire church should conform.

Being the largest blocks - these two blocks can tend to see themselves as the whole church. But they are not and never have been. Many of the smaller - yet just as independent - and just as legitimate - particular churches - have never taken sides in the competition between the two… and remained independent. Neither taking the Septuagint nor Vulgate (nor Revised Standard version) as a standard to the entire church.

It seems to me that the Eastern church which is likened to the Orthodox block - venerate the Septuagint to the point of believing it a supernatural item or an item of special grace (whatever). The Latin church uses the Standard Revised version as a practical copy for the sake of official use for the entire church - and the Oriental churches and other Eastern churches which are not joined directly to either - use what they have had from their establishment and in whatever language was appropriate to them. Both the Eastern and Latin churches act as if what they believe - should apply to the entire church - and the reality is - it does not.

So while many honored men in the Greek and Latin circles have held that the Septuagint was very special - this was myoptic on their part and was not a view shared by all churches in total. Note that the Arimac copies held by the Aribic churches (Chaldean etc.) are called Pershitte meaning “true copy” or “straight” in the sense of the ONE copy by which all others should be judged. Each church holds some type and form of primacy to whichevery copy and language they have been using. Giving proof to my mind that any thoughts of any kind of ‘primacy’ are attributed to human nature and have no real substance to God. All these several translations and transliterations - agree in essentials and essence (despite the variations of language and culture) and therefore to me - the primacy is in their meaning and not in their words and written languages.

While the main body of the Church begin in the Jews (scriptures in Hebrew and Aramaic etc..) and expanded to the Greeks (scriptures and such now in Greek) and then further expanded to the Latins (the Vulgate and etc..) this main body (lter to split in two main bodies) are not the entire church (they thought they were) and have never been the embodiment of the One universal church. The torso - and even the torso with the head - is not a complete body without the feet, and the fingers, and the toes - the smaller yet just as imprinting and equal - particular churches not aligned politically with either the Eastern not Latin. So while these main blocks went merrily on their way thinking ‘we are the church’ and measuring all things by themselves - the rest of the church ignored them and developed without them yet still under the full grace of God.

The majority of the church fell into just what Paul warned against - arguing over - the words - of scriptures - as if scriptures. “Do not argue over scriptures like the scribes (scholars) do.”

I have become my view a few years back, that as much as a standardization came about on the Greek aspects and Latin aspects of the social and cultural church (being the largest blocks) as much as they had assisted the total church in social growth through out the world - it has also wounded the church spiritually. Neither large block saw the other smaller church as significant or as equals within the total body of Christ. Which - was good for these smaller churches in as much as these smaller churches refused to be drawn into the human competition and went on their own path of development. Often condemned by both the Greek and Latin blocks - these small churches didn’t give a hoot about the foolishness of the Greek vrs Latin politics.

Of course this is my opinion.

I find that integrating these non-aligned small churches whom developed their own independent theologies, and their own non-Latin non-Greek scriptures, into the entire church as a whole - is a sobering element by which to recognize the abuses done by both the Greek block and the Lain blocks.

The Church in total, and therefore in universal - includes these - and what is shared between all is universal and what is not shared between all is not universal.

To sum up - yes - you are right my firend and I see that. Almost all the early Greek and early Latin fathers of the Eastern and Latin churches held the Greek version to be the standard.

They wre both - wrong. Each -was- an internal stndard to each church block - but had no reality as a universal strandard, In just the same way today, both the Eastern Church and the Latin church each believe that they should be the universal standard - and they are - in universal reality - not.

-ray

One controversial piece of evidence which basically proves that the early church worked with the LXX in hand was highlighted when the RSV scholars used the MT to translate Is 7.14:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.

LXX - parthenos; NT - parthenos; MT - almah

See here: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spIs7-14.html

Having said that, there is some recent Western Catholic scholarship which points to the probability that the Bible Jesus 'knew' was not the same as what we would consider to be the extant LXX.

Yes, the Alexandrian Jews did translate their Bible into Greek-- the Torah first-- probably in the second half of the 3rd century B.C.E. Then some time later, the Prophets were translated... then, later again (?how much later?) the third section of the Hebrew Bible, the Writings.

It is through the fairly exact science of Biblical scholarship that points to the fact that the present book of Daniel, for instance, is a second century B.C.E. composition. The book is not quoted before about 150 B.C.E. (I think in neither Hebrew nor Greek sources). But a mystery still surrounds (to my knowledge) when Daniel was transferred from the Writings to the prophetic section of the LXX.

But this we may safely assume-- by the time of the composition of the Holy Gospels it was generally thought that (the book of) Daniel was a prophetic book, hence, Daniel a prophet:

"So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. St Matt 24.15-18 (RSV)

and

"But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. St Mk 13.14-16 (RSV)

cf. But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. St Mk 13.14-16 (KJV)

... Yet today we know that Daniel is not prophetic literature but apocalyptic literature... and that it was written some 100 years after the Jews in Alexandria began doing their initial work of translation from Hebrew to Greek.

All very interesting, from a chronological and contextual point of view, yes? :-)

p.s. Not long after the destruction of Jerusalem we also know that the Pharisees pretty much rejected the LXX....

In my research it had seemed to me that the Septuagint did not arise from the legend (70 elders picked) but arose from a practical need within the synagogues of Alexandria - for a Greek version. And so it was an ongoing work among the synagogues to translate it portion by portion. Different portions may have been assigned or it may have really been who-ever-wanted-to - happen-stance as it were. Not really an official - project. The need would not only have been for casual synagogue use (discussion) but also, since Alexandria was a center of education and cultures with world renown schools - it would be used as an ‘introductory text’ for interfaith discussions among scholars of the different schools. Never intended to replace the ‘sacred’ Hebrew it would have just been a non-sacred translation for popular (and not sacred) use. I imagine that the synagogue readings were still done in the sacred tongue from a Hebrew text - after all to be Bar-Mitz (like young Jesus in the Temple) one had to pass examination of how well one learned the Hebrew of the sacred text.

What you say about Daniel is very interesting - you say it was originally part of the Writings - and then made its way over to the Prophets… now that is very interesting.

If true - that would tend to say that Daniel is more the work of perhaps a ‘school of the prophet Daniel’ - than totally the work of one man. Something which began with the prophet’s own work and was then expanded and polished over time by members of his school. That would seem to make more human sense for its spread and popularity. More like … Isaiah and his school-community.

Did you hear about the research into Qumran (sp)? where the Dead Sea scrolls were found… The best opinion I have heard is that Qumran was a successful merchant community - wealthy traders - not an Essene cult center at all - and the Temple library was taken there to be hid in the caves as the Romans approached Jerusalem.

As far as the Essences - that too must now be re-visited in as much as (1) Qumran was imagined to be their - community (2) Philo’s description of the Theraputians (thought to be Essens) has turned out to probably be a description of his own school - right there in Alexandria. Kind of neat that he would call his way “therapy”.

This now poses a very serious question as to if the ‘Essenes’ were really just a figment of our own scholars imagination looking to ’discover’ the sensational And if so - that would place the ‘community texts’ right back into - the Temple! Were the community text of Qurum a library of the school of Isaiah? Was the Temple split? Were some priests holding out for an end to political corruption within the Temple??? Certainly a group of them were as the gospels display.

All this is fascinating and allows a more human and natural explanations to be explored.

Were have you studied?

-ray

Quote from ray.

[What you say about Daniel is very interesting - you say it was originally part of the Writings - and then made its way over to the Prophets… now that is very interesting.

If true - that would tend to say that Daniel is more the work of perhaps a ‘school of the prophet Daniel’ - than totally the work of one man. Something which began with the prophet’s own work and was then expanded and polished over time by members of his school. That would seem to make more human sense for its spread and popularity. More like … Isaiah and his school-community.

-ray ]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ray,

ummmm. Interesting about the Book of Daniel.

The traditional view which has been chief among Catholic scholars refers to Daniel, himself, as the author of the Book of Daniel. However, it also admits that numerous alterations have been introduced into the primitive text of the book in the course of the ages. The date of composition for the traditional view has been 570-536 B.C.


However, a relatively recent (I don't know how recent) theory accepted by contemporary scholars attributes the origin of the Book of Daniel in its present form to a later writer and period. No mention, however, of a school. But, I do agree, it would seem a likely possibility as is the case with Isaiah. According to the recent theory this author would have composed it during the period of the Machabees - 175-164 B.C.

I found a very good article on the Book of Daniel at:

Book of Daniel

In fact, I have bookmarked it myself for further study.

In Christ,

Porter.

Hi ray and porter,

1 and 2 Maccabees informs the modern reader of the setting and backdrop against which the book of Daniel, as it is in the Bible, was written.

The character Dan'el, known among Israel's neighbours as well, is of legendary status. The story of Daniel, the faithful-at-all-costs Jew, is an old story by the time the author(s) set about writing the Book we now know.

Since the author(s) of the book of Daniel do not know of the end of Antiochus IV 'Epiphanes' we can safely assume that he/they finished his/their composition before 164/63 B.C.E., when IV left Judaea; he is the 'little horn' of Daniel 8.9

Hardly any book is as easy to date as is Daniel in all of Scripture: 165 B.C.E.

[The 1st 6 chapters are the corpus of an older story line, known well in the author's day but not written in the form we have it today. The fact that most of the first 7 chapters are in Aramaic and the rest is in Hebrew, speaks of the author's bravery. # IV's policy of Hellenisation was so complete that all things non-Greek were banned.]


As to the question about a school, that really relates to prophetic literature but not apocalyptic, of which Daniel 7-12 is the best example in all of the Hebrew Bible. While there are earlier types of speech that are moving toward apocalyptic in some of the actual prophetic books, Daniel 7-12 is full-blown apocalyptic. Apocalyptic texts like Daniel did not exist in the 6th century B.C.E.; that is why a traditional date will not do. It can't do.

Historically speaking, there is no mention of the book of Daniel before 150 B.C.E.

Just imagine the popularity of a book which portrays a faithful Jew standing up to the foreign ruler, even under threat of death, and not only surviving but thriving! No wonder we hear of it so soon after composition-- only 15 years!!!


Where have I studied? In university, seminary and at my desk as a minister for some 25 years, in America and Britain! But it's not where I studied that matters all that much, but what I studied, yes!? :-)

wild goose

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi WG,

Yes, As I recall I agree about the school. It has been 20 years since I last studied Daniel in graduate school and then not that much, but planning on it now. Thanks for the update. I also agree with you in that it doesn't matter that much where we studied - but what ? Amen. Well said.

Bless your day and thanks for such a lively and informative post. I just returned to the forum after a three month absence. Didn't have a p.c.for a while and just got a lap top, so a belated "Welcome" to you "wild goose" You'll find that what we may lack in accuracy we make up for in friendliness and receptivity. Enjoy!

In Christ,

Porter aka Mary Jo

Hi Mary Jo,

Many thanks for the welcome! It is much appreciated... you may be the first, in fact, but I've only very recently found this forum.

The more I learn about apocalyptic biblical literature, the more fascinated and interested I get.

The backdrop of Daniel corresponds to much in world politics today. There were Jews who, for political and no doubt financial reasons, colluded with the Greek rulers and their Hellenisation policies. AND there were Jews who hated these other Jews for selling-out to the Greeks.

This, of course, was part of the system that our Lord confronted in Jerusalem; some Jews, due to status in the upper eschalons of Judaean society, colluded with Rome-- some hated these for doing so. Jesus stepped into a hornet's nest... just like the group behind 'Daniel's' composition did.

[Osama bin Laden was our enemy's enemy before the Cold War ended... so we were (very) friendly with him. Now that enemy (the former USSR, namely Russia) is our friend... bin Laden is our friend's enemy still... so we aren't friendly with him any longer... he is enemy #1. Daniel informs us... still!]

Have a great Lord's Day, wg :-)

Since we were talking about the book of Daniel - here is what I know about it - which is not much.

Like Job and Tobit - the book is centered around a core vision given to some prophet during a suspension of his normal senses (dream or ecstasy). It is a prophetic book and not really an apocalyptic book. It deals entirely with the coming of Jesus Christ (Son of Man) in the flesh - to the nation of Israel. An act of judgment and justification (paying the price of the judgment). An event which has taken place - but at the time of this book was in the future. It does not deal with an end to history (end of the physical world) - but rather an end to the spiritual history of Israel as a race exclusive to God - and the beginning of the era of Jesus Christ (which we are in now).

Like Job (which is about the spiritual event which St. John of the Cross calls the Dark Night of sense, and the Dark Night of spirit) and like Tobit (which is about ascending into contemplation) “Daniel” is not a real person as we would have it. He is a personification - the name Daniel as formed of the Hebrew means “God judges” or “the judgment of God”. (laynd - left to right).

Note that Daniel is never really identified (“Daniel son of so-and-so“) as would be done in traditional Jewish form if he, as a historical figure, were important. Nor is he annopinted as prophet (as we see in other books about a prophet). And so it is not important if Daniel was a real human - what is important (according to the form that Jews used for these type books) is that the book of Daniel is - the book of “The judgment of God” where the name of a book is a concise statement of the content of the book - that judgment that God makes on such matters as the book treats - is the main message of the book.

A distinction is always made between those who held the ‘office’ of a prophet and those who might receive what we perhaps can call the prophetic gift. A book issuing from the office of prophet (like Isaiah) is always noted as such. Whether the book of Isaiah originated from the person of Isaiah and was then further amended by those who held that office after him - was not as important as to understand its authority as being from the ‘office’ of the prophet Isaiah.

From its form and structure - it is a prophetic book - meaning - it treats of the “understanding the deep things of the Lord” and arose from one of the schools of the prophets (a community attached to a prophet - much like the disciples of St. Francis formed a community about him). Cutting away the later addition of Susana and Bel etc… and returning the book to its original Hebrew - it follows the form of a prophetic book. That is: division and subdivision according to a matrix of 4 and 7.

This matrix is most easily seen in John’s Revelations where the core vision (Jesus, standing in the Holy of Holies, dressed as High Priest <white and gold - only worn on the Day of Atonement> about to pour out onto the ground and sprinkle onto the Arc - the brazen bowel containing the blood of the sacrifice). John’s core vision is unfolded by a fourfold repetition - in four visions - all four of which are to be understood as internal to the core vision (letters, seals, trumpets, bowels). Each of the four visions containing 7 items - these four visions are to be understood as a repetition (under different images) of the core vision.

There is form to every kind of literature. A form followed when writing it. There is one form to a letter (Date, greeting, small talk, main issues, conclusion, signature) and another form for contracts, and another form for declarations, novels, history books.. Etc… we are so used to these forms and literary structures that we hardly consciously notice them. And the Hebrew had their own forms - very strict forms I might add.

Daniel (the book) is what I call “tutorial” prophetic literature. While it contains a core vision and oracle - the school from which it came - amended that - by adding a prolog which “sets the stage” through an intentional and purposeful - use - of Jewish history… and an ending which gives further elucidation of the how that core vision in-forms (is the landscape of) Jewish history.

The core vision being tightly woven imagery (infused directly into the imaginative faculty of the prophet - see St, John of The Cross) that which is added after is more shallow and forced… a human use of the “prophetic language” of images - edited in after - in order to pull out the message of the core and make it understandable to students (disciples of the school). Turning it into a type of small thesis on some aspect of the spiritual life appropriate to the stage the disciple is approaching.

As a prophetic book outside of the confines of the school in which it arose - Daniel and John’s Revelations are - book ends - to the central event of Jesus (Son of Man) coming in the flesh of Jewish history. John’s own visions can only be properly understood when anchored in Daniel.

Daniel points forward to the moment of the Son of Man coming into Jewish history - and John points back to the event of the Son of Man coming into Jewish history. The end of one age (aeon) and the beginning of the final age (last days) the age of Jesus Christ - which “shall not end”.

Daniel tells the Jew familiar with the milestones of Jewish history “There he is! He comes!” by pointing forward and John tells the Jew familiar with Jewish history “There he is! He came!” by pointing backward to the crucifixion and resurrection of the man - Jesus.

Neither John nor Daniel - predict - any historical events beyond the historical appearance of Jesus Christ. That one event - which split’s the history of the world in two - dividing time into - the time before Jesus Christ - and the time after Jesus Christ.

Notice the central themes of both are the same…
- Final judgment upon the world
- Resurrection
- Establishment of the last or final never ending government (church) of God

Note that these three items are explicitly the properties of the Son of Man (Jesus in the flesh).
- Final judgment of the world (laid upon Jesus - the crucifixion)
- Resurrection - Jesus rises from the dead.
- Establishment of an everlasting government that will never end - the decent from heaven and establishment on earth of the new church.

One ‘might’ say that Daniel ‘predicts’ the historical event of Jesus Christ - but one can not really call that a prediction (prediction is based upon human reason and intuition) when one understands that the core vision given to the prophet was an actual experience - of that historical event. A condition where the normal concept of time (which is sense based) has no meaning and no application. The experience is accompanied by sense images taking place within the imaginative faculty of the prophet - but that imagery to the senses of the prophet are entirely secondary to the palpable spiritual experience of the presence of the Son of Man (the human presence of Jesus Christ). Like John - THAT presence - is the core of the vision - from which all other visions flow and are contained within.

As someone already said in this thread - Daniel (according to the Hebrew cannon) is not placed in the Prophets (according to the triad division of …

1)Revealtion of the Law (Torah)
2)The acts of the Prophets (Nevi’im)
3) The Writings of the Prophets (Kethuvim)

again indicating that it is not the personal writing of a singular prophet but rather something that came out of a school associated with a prophet. The OT and the NT being divided in the same way ….

1) The revelation of the Law (Torah)…. The revelation of Jesus (gospels)
2) The acts of the Prophets …. The acts of the apostles
3) The writings of the prophets …. The writings (epistles) of the apostles

One should consider these three divisions in this way…

1) The revelation (Torah - Gospels)
2) the revelation in action (Prophets - Apostles)
3) the revelation explained by those who are entrusted with the revelation (Writings - Epistles)

As such Daniel belongs in the third category - an explanation - or tutorial - built around a central core - which core is - a personal experience of that same revelation.

Summary…
Again, like John (so well understood by Eugenio Corsinin in his “The Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ”) we should now expect the seven(?) visions of Daniel to be a repetition (under different imagery) of the core vision. We should expect a matrix of one core vision expanded to 7 visions with 4 items each which repeat from vision to vision. John uses 4 visions of 7 items each. These visions take place (for lack of a better word) simultaneously and are to be understood as rooted in and coming from - the core vision. While John has not been amended later - Daniel was - and so we shall find the stage set for the vision before hand - and then the application of that core vision as an in-forming principle (spiritual reality) at work within (what we would now call) world events which the Jews of that time found themselves in. This later portion added - would be similar to the commentaries found at Qumran - where the verse is read and then explained how it applies as the inscape of current situations.

This book should in no way be believed to be a fiction written (an intended manipulating of history and images) with the purpose of encouragement of Jews under contemporary harsh conditions. The extension - of the book - written within the school much after the fact of the vision - may in fact turn to just such a thing - but the core vision remains excellently about the Son of Man (flesh of the messiah) stepping into Jewish history.

I believe (expect) that we would find the core vision (and its seven repetitions) to be a transliteration (probably Aramaic) and the further additions (in stage setting and extension) to be more mixed with Persian - again displaying its long life within a school spanned out over a long time - or displaying its origin with a Hebrew prophet - locating his school in areas of Persian influence.

I should be curious to know if any of Daniel was found among the Dead Sea scrolls - those scrolls being the Temple Library squirreled away in the natural caves of Qumran (a wealthy merchant community) just before the Roman Legions sacked Jerusalem. While either its presence in the Temple Library among the scrolls or not - would not be an absolutely certain indication - its presence would mean that it had gained wide universal acceptance (and a copy deposited within the Temple Library) and its absence might indicate that school’s relative isolation (physical and political) from the Temple.

-ray